Just because voters approve it, does not make it right in a constitutional sense. The thing I always remember when I took the oath for the military was that I would support and defend the “Constitution” of the United States. Not specifically the people of the United States. For the churchgoers who think that they have the moral high ground over all others, I am sure you would lose your minds if voters approved a proposition that restricted your religious beliefs and outlawed your specific church.

Any voter-approved proposition that can be overturned by a court because of a technicality or major constitutional flaw was doomed from the beginning and should never have been put on a ballot. Thorough inspection for any possible challenge to a vote is a must to prevent voter frustration and apathy. When the will of the majority is negated, people get a “what’s the use in voting?” attitude. That’s even worse than voting for a terrible proposition.

Many Americans fail miserably to understand how the U.S. Constitution was written and what its true meaning is and how it should be interpreted. That is the main function of the United States Supreme Court. For a case to be heard by this body of law scholars, most cases need to be heard by the lower courts first to become qualified to be heard by the final nine!

It should not come as a surprise that most people vote with their personal feelings about issues and not with the knowledge of how the law really must be interpreted. If an issue is voted on and a question arises regarding proper interpretation, then the Supreme Court will generally be asked to make the final interpretation and decision in the matter. Such is the case of Proposition 8.

It is not true that a popular vote for a measure that deprives a minority of legal and equal status – no matter how many times it happens – can be accepted as “legal” just because a majority wants it to stand. If a group of your neighbors took a vote and asked you to move from the neighborhood (“We had a meeting and a majority of us don’t like you”), would you do it? Judicial review is a requirement of our constitutional protections, preserving minority rights.

If gays have the same legally binding rights that married heteros have, why the need to call it a “marriage”?

Minority civil rights should never, I repeat, never be placed on a ballot measure for popular vote. This time the target was the gays. Who’s next? It’s a slippery slope, folks. You don’t want to go there.

What some people don’t realize is that we live in a representative republic – not a democracy. In a true democracy, the majority can vote away a minority’s rights. This happens in many Third World countries. Uganda’s “kill gays” bill could become law based on this theory.

In America, even the smallest minorities have the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. While the Constitution does not mention marriage, per se, it does mention equality. If marriage is allowed between opposite genders, then it needs to be allowed for same-sex genders.

So what do you want to call the marital binding of two men or two women?